Mediterranean migrants- specific questions

Iwasfrozen

djpbarry wrote: »

Tell that to the people who were on board Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

Considering these people don't seem to make much use of airlines that's hardly a concern.

These people are literally risking their lives crossing the Med on glorified rafts and you glibly dismiss them as not being terribly concerned about safety?

Literally risking their lives crossing the Med on glorified rafts is the definition of not being terribly concerned about safety.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Considering these people don't seem to make much use of airlines that's hardly a concern.


Literally risking their lives crossing the Med on glorified rafts is the definition of not being terribly concerned about safety.

It's called desperation.

Peregrinus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I did. But that can only be done after an agreement on EU level. The EU has the power to renegotiate or ignore the 1951 convention on the status of refugees to fit a changing world.

As I suspected, Iwasfrozen, you’re making this stuff up as you go along. The EU has no such power.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Every single law on the status of refugees differentiates between the two, refugees are to be provided protection provided they did not pass through a safe country to get here, on the other hand economic migrants are not.

You believe that “every single law” makes this differentiation, yet you are unable to quote even one law that actually does. No surprise there, then.

meepins

oscarBravo wrote: »

Those guys think they have it bad, trying to escape a war zone - we have foreigners coming here. The horror!

People wanting their families and fellow countrymen to be safe in their homeland. The horror!

Iwasfrozen

Peregrinus wrote: »

As I suspected, Iwasfrozen, you’re making this stuff up as you go along. The EU has no such power.

Doesn't it? Who would stop it?

You believe that “every single law” makes this differentiation, yet you are unable to quote even one law that actually does. No surprise there, then.

Read my post again, slowly. You're asking me to provide proof of something I never claimed. I can't answer for your fabrications.

Peregrinus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Doesn't it? Who would stop it?

Well, the EU isn't a party to the 1951 Convention, so it can't renegotiate it. And the Convention doesn't impose any obligations on the EU, so it can't ignore it either, except in the sense that I can ignore your obligation to repay that loan you took from the bank. However assiduously I ignore the loan, you still owe it and the bank will still enforce it.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Read my post again, slowly. You're asking me to provide proof of something I never claimed. I can't answer for your fabrications.

Well, in post #25 you stated:

"The law does differentiate between genuine seekers and economic migrants"

And in post #26 I quoted that, and wrote:

"I challenge you to quote me a provision of the law that distinguishes between refugees and economic migrants."

And in post #31 you quote that, and replied:

"Every single law on the status of refugees differentiates between the two, refugees are to be provided protection provided they did not pass through a safe country to get here, on the other hand economic migrants are not."

So, you did claim that every single law on the status of refugees differentiates between genuine seekers and economic migrants. You have made that claim, in slightly different terms, twice in this thread. It's not a fabrication of mine.

And I note that you have still not quoted a single law which differentiates between genuine seekers and economic migrants.

creeper1

the money in Ireland is gone. The last government spent it all so unfortunately we can't be helpful in this situation.

Should the Irish see cuts to their services to help migrants? I don't think so.

I Am curious if the philanthropist peregrinus would make any sacrifices himself towards the migrants.

Do you have a spare room for one of them?

Would you even be prepared to live next to a migrant family?

Peregrinus

creeper1 wrote: »

I Am curious if the philanthropist peregrinus would make any sacrifices himself towards the migrants.

Do you have a spare room for one of them?

Well, I'm kind of unpersuaded that the options are that migrants either (a) live in my spare room, or (b) get sent to Libya. I do think there is a wider range of possibilities open to us.

creeper1 wrote: »

Would you even be prepared to live next to a migrant family?

As it happens, I do live next to a migrant family (although they are not refugees). I wouldn't have any problem living next to a family of refugees, and I'm sure you wouldn't either.

But none of that has any bearing on the validity of the claims made by Iwasfrozen.

NIMAN

Just watched the Lorry Jumpers that I had recorded from channel 4 the other night. Very sad viewing. What some people have to live in.

I bet every single person stuck in Calais would jump at the chance to have to pay €160 water tax every year.

djpbarry

The Corinthian wrote: »

Secondly, just because an asylum seeker may want to find the best place to start a new life, economically, that does not mean they have a right to. The asylum process is there to take them out of harms way, not guarantee them a wonderful new life.

Fair point, but they do have the right to due process – it seems unlikely to me that Greece, in particular, is currently in a position to afford each case the attention it deserves.

The Corinthian

djpbarry wrote: »

Fair point, but they do have the right to due process – it seems unlikely to me that Greece, in particular, is currently in a position to afford each case the attention it deserves.

True, but that does not mean that they cannot afford any case the attention it deserves or that an asylum seeker who registers for asylum in Germany, should ultimately be allowed to stay in Germany.

DulchieLaois

I dont understand this logic of "why Ireland is not doing enough"

If I want to go Australia illegally, I will be there on my own accord and if I want handouts, I have to get it myself.
I am sure if I claim that I was targeted by the government during the water protests, I would be dismissed.

I understand that there is a case of people trying to travel to Europe but they have to expect the conditions that come with it.

I just read that 800,000 people have reached Germany alone this year, could this people be not better off fighting a better life in their own country like we have done for thousand of years.

I think, this case of going to Europe for a better life is nonsense, it is all lies, yet pushing for anything that they can get for free.

djpbarry

DulchieLaois wrote: »

If I want to go Australia illegally, I will be there on my own accord and if I want handouts, I have to get it myself.
I am sure if I claim that I was targeted by the government during the water protests, I would be dismissed.

Of course you would, because it is not even remotely comparable to what is happening in Syria.

A Dub in Glasgo

DulchieLaois wrote: »

I dont understand this logic of "why Ireland is not doing enough"

If I want to go Australia illegally, I will be there on my own accord and if I want handouts, I have to get it myself.
I am sure if I claim that I was targeted by the government during the water protests, I would be dismissed.

I understand that there is a case of people trying to travel to Europe but they have to expect the conditions that come with it.

I just read that 800,000 people have reached Germany alone this year, could this people be not better off fighting a better life in their own country like we have done for thousand of years.

I think, this case of going to Europe for a better life is nonsense, it is all lies, yet pushing for anything that they can get for free.

A couple of points

1. Educate yourselves about what is happening in Syria and tell us how that compares with you wanting to go to Austrailia

2. Germany has not accepted 800k so far this year, Germany has said it expects up to 800,000 applications in 2015. The figure to end of July was 218,221 applications

The Corinthian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

1. Educate yourselves about what is happening in Syria and tell us how that compares with you wanting to go to Austrailia

I don't think many are complaining about the Syrians; indeed the general consensus has been that genuine asylum seekers are not at all the problem.

The problem is both one of in what country they may seek asylum and, more importantly, that a significant number are not genuine asylum seekers. It's easy to make an appeal to emotion when talking about Syrians, but a little less so when it comes to other nationalities such as west Africans, who are overwhelmingly simply economic migrants.

BoJack Horseman

It gets muddier though.

Much of North Africa is at war.

Nigeria, Mali, Niger, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan..... all nations at war that have territory controlled by Islamic militants.

Eritrea since achieving independence has rarely ceased making war against itself or against Ethiopia.

If the criteria for free infinite entry is a state torn apart by militant islam, the candidates reach far further than Syria.

oscarBravo

meepins wrote: »

People wanting their families and fellow countrymen to be safe in their homeland. The horror!

You're right. I want Irish people to be safe in their homeland. Non-Irish people, being intrinsically inferior, don't deserve to be safe in their own or any other country.

creeper1 wrote: »

the money in Ireland is gone.

No, it's not.

meepins

oscarBravo wrote: »

Non-Irish people, being intrinsically inferior, don't deserve to be safe in their own or any other country.

john-leibowitz-staring-smugly-at-the-camera dot jay peg

also take that hate flag down ta

Peregrinus

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If the criteria for free infinite entry is a state torn apart by militant islam, the candidates reach far further than Syria.

Plus, there's no rule that says that it's only people persecuted by militant islam who can be refugees.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

Plus, there's no rule that says that it's only people persecuted by militant islam who can be refugees.

There's also no rule that says that war or dictatorship in your country makes you automatically a valid asylum seeker.

oscarBravo

meepins wrote: »

john-leibowitz-staring-smugly-at-the-camera dot jay peg

What have you got against Jon Stewart?

also take that hate flag down ta

I don't know what this means.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's also no rule that says that war or dictatorship in your country makes you automatically a valid asylum seeker.

Yes. To be a refugee you have to have left your own country, and you have to have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, etc, etc.

In international law, there's nothing to parallel the Refugee Convention for people who flee a conflict zone simply because they don't want to become collateral damage. But most governments recognize that they need to flee and, in any event, it's generally impossible to return them while the conflict continues. And, depending on the intensity of the conflict, there may be little for them to return to afterwards.

So, in fact, broadly speaking we have three groups - refugees (well founded fear of persecution); displaced people (don't want to stay in a war zone); economic migrants (hope to better their situation). But there are huge overlaps - many refugees are also displaced from a war zone, and many refugees and displaced people hope to better their situation. I think an approach to the problem which treats the categories as mutually exclusive simply doesn't recognise the reality of the situation, and is doomed to failure.

Jelle1880

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's also no rule that says that war or dictatorship in your country makes you automatically a valid asylum seeker.

It does make you eligible for refugee status though, which then enables you to request asylum elsewhere.

Peregrinus

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It does make you eligible for refugee status though, which then enables you to request asylum elsewhere.

Actually no, it doesn't make you eligible for refugee status. To succeed in a claim for asylum as a refugee you have to have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality or the like. A well-founded fear of having the living shlt bombed out of you by people who are indifferent to your race, religion etc is not enough.

The Corinthian

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It does make you eligible for refugee status though, which then enables you to request asylum elsewhere.

Actually it doesn't. To do that you need to show you were in danger of being specifically targeted and had no option but to flee the country.

There's plenty of people living in dictatorships who live their lives without any persecution. And people who live in countries in conflict where they can move to parts where war is not present. Asylum is only for those who have no other choice but to flee the nation when seeking safety. Not a prosperous life - safety.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, in fact, broadly speaking we have three groups - refugees (well founded fear of persecution); displaced people (don't want to stay in a war zone); economic migrants (hope to better their situation). But there are huge overlaps - many refugees are also displaced from a war zone, and many refugees and displaced people hope to better their situation. I think an approach to the problem which treats the categories as mutually exclusive simply doesn't recognise the reality of the situation, and is doomed to failure.

That's not what happens though. The approach seeks to confirm whether the applicant falls into either of the two categories, regardless if they also belong to the third.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually it doesn't. To do that you need to show you were in danger of being specifically targeted and had no option but to flee the country.

There's plenty of people living in dictatorships who live their lives without any persecution. And people who live in countries in conflict where they can move to parts where war is not present. Asylum is only for those who have no other choice but to flee the nation when seeking safety. Not a prosperous life - safety.

Yes. But if you're seeking safety, you don't suddenly get treated as not seeking safety because you are also seeking a more prosperous life.

In an asylum assessment, the questions are - do you have a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, etc? Are you outside the country of your nationality? Are you unable or unwilling because of that fear to avail of protection in your home country?

If the answer to those questions are "yes", then you're a refugee, and entitled to protection as such. You'll note that the question "why did you choose to seek asylum in (say) Germany rather than (say) the Gambia?" is not a relevant question. It has no bearing at all on the issue of whether you are a refugee.

Peregrinus

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not what happens though. The approach seeks to confirm whether the applicant falls into either of the two categories, regardless if they also belong to the third.

Just to clarify, when I talked about an approach that treats these groups as mutually exclusive, I was taking about the approaches that seem to be favoured by some of the contributors to this thread, not the approaches used by EU countries.

The Corinthian

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the answer to those questions are "yes", then you're a refugee, and entitled to protection as such. You'll note that the question "why did you choose to seek asylum in (say) Germany rather than (say) the Gambia?" is not a relevant question. It has no bearing at all on the issue of whether you are a refugee.

Fair enough, but I'm not really arguing this point.

DulchieLaois

Educate myself ??. I know that the media is portraying a sob story across Europe of the migrants plight so the people within one country are very sympathic for them.

I have educated myself that the majority of riots within Europe have been in Paris, Stockholm and London, cities with a high percent of migrants who are suffering as a result of not working and living in run down areas and therefore, un rest and crime is high.

I know from educating myself that the one of the main crimes within Sweden is rape among Swedish women by migrants who are young, bored and believe that western women are easy due to their religious beliefs

If things are soo bad in Syria, why are they making hazardous trips to Europe when they can go to South Africa or Middle East - trips by land and without the risk.

At the rate that this migrant crisis is happening, Europe will allow itself to be far right like Denmark is at the present moment.

I think society within Ireland, has to be cruel and say no for once, because as it is we are pro bloody everything, catering for everyone which is fair enough but this is pushing it for a small country - all migrants would want to be located in a place like Dublin which currently caters for their needs but this city is running out of space.

I dont need education, i have common sense and logic